Ex-CIA man likely to plead guilty in leak case

October 23, 2012

The Associated Press on October 22, 2012 released the following:

“By MATTHEW BARAKAT
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A former CIA officer accused of leaking the names of covert operatives to journalists is expected to enter a guilty plea as part of a plea deal.

A change of plea hearing was scheduled for Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., for John Kiriakou. He initially pleaded not guilty to the charges that he disclosed the names of two covert CIA operatives.

The apparent change comes shortly after Kiriakou lost a key pre-trial ruling that established a lower legal burden for prosecutors to prove their case. Kiriakou’s lawyers had argued unsuccessfully that prosecutors should have to prove that Kirkiakou intended to harm the United States through his alleged leaks. Such a strict legal standard had been imposed recently on a leaks prosecution against two pro-Israel lobbyists.

But U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled last week that such a high standard should not apply to Kiriakou, a government employee with top-secret security clearances who knew well the dangers of disclosing classified information.

Instead, prosecutors would only have to show that Kiriakou had “reason to believe” that the information could be used to injure the U.S.

Court records do not make clear exactly what charges Kiriakou would plead to. When he was indicted in April, he was charged with one count of disclosing classified information identifying a covert agent, three counts of illegally disclosing national defense information and one count of making false statements. He faced up to 45 years in prison if convicted on all counts in the indictment.

Kiriakou, who wrote a book detailing his CIA career, had tried to argue after the charges were filed that he was a victim of vindictive prosecution by government officials who believed he portrayed the CIA negatively, but the judge rejected those arguments as well.

Peter Carr, a spokesman for U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Neil MacBride, whose office is prosecuting the case, declined comment Monday. Kiriakou’s attorney, Robert Trout, also declined comment.

Kiriakou was a CIA veteran who played a role in the agency’s capture of al-Qaida terrorist Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in 2002. Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded by government interrogators and eventually revealed information that led to the arrest of “dirty bomb” plotter Jose Padilla and exposed Khalid Sheikh Mohamed as the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

Accounts conflict, though, over whether the waterboarding was helpful in gleaning intelligence from Zubaydah. Kiriakou, who did not participate in the waterboarding, expressed ambivalence in news media interviews about use of the tactic.

Court papers indicate that the investigation of Kiriakou began in 2009 when authorities became alarmed after discovering that detainees at Guantanamo Bay possessed photographs of CIA and FBI personnel. The investigation eventually led back to the alleged leaks by Kiriakou, according to a government affidavit.

The papers indicate prosecutors believe Kiriakou leaked the name of one covert operative to a journalist, who subsequently disclosed the name to an investigator working for the lawyer of a Guantanamo detainee.

Kiriakou had planned to subpoena three journalists connected to the case. Those journalists had filed motions to quash the subpoenas, but that issue will now be rendered moot by the apparent plea deal.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Trial Judge to Appeals Court: Review Me

July 17, 2012

The New York Times on July 16, 2012 released the following:

“Earlier this year, an opinion for the Supreme Court by Justice Anthony Kennedy noted a stunning and often overlooked reality of the American legal process: a vast majority of criminal cases — 97 percent of federal cases, 94 percent of state cases — are resolved by guilty pleas. “Criminal justice today,” he observed, “is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials.”

In this context, the recent rejection in a federal district court by Judge John Kane of a plea bargain deal between a defendant and federal prosecutors is truly startling. Judge Kane rejected the deal in part because the defendant waived his right to appeal to a higher court.

The judge insisted the matter go forward to trial so that the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit could review it: “Indiscriminate acceptance of appellate waivers,” he said, “undermines the ability of appellate courts to ensure the constitutional validity of convictions and to maintain consistency and reasonableness in sentencing decisions.” The case is scheduled for trial next month in Denver.

Waivers are a common but largely hidden element of plea bargains — which, in many federal cases, aren’t really bargains because the power of prosecutors is often so much greater than that of the defendants or their lawyers. The process is closer to coercion. Prosecutors regularly “overcharge” defendants with a more serious crime than what actually occurred. The defendants must then choose between the risk of being found guilty at trial and getting a longer sentence than the alleged crime would warrant or a guilty plea in exchange for a lighter sentence. All but a tiny minority of defendants take the plea as the price of avoiding the crapshoot of a trial.

In a sample of almost 1,000 federal cases around the country, agreements included waivers about two-thirds of the time and more often in some places. Every federal appeals court has ruled that in general waivers are enforceable as part of the efficient administration of justice.

Some standard parts of waivers are outrageous, keeping defendants from appealing even if they become convinced that they received inadequate counsel to accept a defective plea agreement where the sentence was not lighter or where the prosecutor wrongly withheld evidence. Any defense lawyer or prosecutor who asks a defendant to sign a waiver ruling out appeals on those grounds is protecting himself.

An important element of justice is missing even when the defendant and the government believe a plea bargain is fair and when an appeal waiver is narrow so the defendant can appeal about certain specified issues. Congress gave appeals courts the power to review federal sentences to ensure the government applies the law reasonably and consistently. Without an appeals court’s policing, the odds go up that prosecutors will do neither. Our system of pleas then looks more like a system of railroading.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Appeal

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Supreme Court expands plea bargain rights of criminal defendants

March 22, 2012

The Washington Post on March 21, 2012 released the following:

“By Robert Barnes

A divided Supreme Court ruled for the first time Wednesday that the guarantee of effective legal representation applies to plea bargain agreements, significantly expanding the constitutional rights of defendants as they move through the criminal justice system.

In a pair of cases decided by 5 to 4 votes, the court opened a new avenue for defendants to challenge their sentences on grounds that their attorneys gave them faulty advice, lawyers on both sides of the issue said. The vast majority of criminal cases end with a guilty plea rather than a trial, and the ruling could affect thousands of cases.

“The reality is that plea bargains have become so central to the administration of the criminal justice system that defense counsel have responsibilities . . . that must be met to render the adequate assistance of counsel that the Sixth Amendment requires,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote. He was joined by the court’s liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

That is the case, the majority said, even if the defendant is unquestionably guilty or has received a fair trial after turning down a plea bargain.

Since more than nine in 10 cases involve a plea rather than trial, the decision will mean greater constitutional scrutiny of the negotiations central to almost every prosecution.

“It seems to me the court has created a new body of constitutional law,” said Connecticut Assistant State’s Attorney Michael J. Proto, who wrote a brief for 27 states urging the court not to extend the constitutional guarantee to plea bargains. “There are a lot of unanswered questions, and it is going to spawn a lot of litigation.”

Margaret Colgate Love, who helped write an American Bar Association brief that advocated for the court’s action, agreed about its impact.

“What makes these cases so important is the Supreme Court’s full-on recognition of the centrality of plea bargaining in the modern criminal justice system and its extension of constitutional discipline to the outcome of the plea process,” she said.

The decisions prompted a scathing rebuttal from Justice Antonin Scalia, delivered from the bench to signal his displeasure.

Scalia called the rulings “absurd” and said the majority had twisted the constitutional right to ensure defendants get a fair trial into one in which they have a chance “to escape a fair trial and get less punishment than they deserve.”

He added in a written dissent, “Today, however, the Supreme Court of the United States elevates plea bargaining from a necessary evil to a constitutional entitlement.”

The court’s conservatives — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — voted with Scalia.

The court was considering two cases in which all parties agreed that the lawyers involved had failed their clients.

In one, Galin Edward Frye’s attorney never told him of plea bargain offers from Missouri prosecutors on charges that he was driving with a revoked license. He later pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years in prison. Prosecutors had offered Frye a couple of deals, one of which would have required 10 days in jail.

In the other, Anthony Cooper was charged under Michigan law with assault with intent to murder and other charges after shooting Kali Mundy in the buttock, hip and abdomen. She survived the attack.

Prosecutors offered Cooper a deal of 51 to 85 months in prison in exchange for a guilty plea. Cooper turned down that and other offers, allegedly because his attorney told him he could not be found guilty of the attempted murder charge, because he had shot Mundy below the waist.

Cooper went to trial, was convicted and was sentenced to 15 to 30 years in prison.

In the Frye case, the majority held that “when defense counsel allowed the offer to expire without advising the defendant or allowing him to consider it, defense counsel did not render the effective assistance the Constitution requires.”

In Cooper’s case, the court said the “defendant who goes to trial instead of taking a more favorable plea” may be harmed by receiving “either a conviction on more serious counts or the imposition of a more severe sentence.”

The majority rejected the view of Scalia, the states and the Obama administration that any ineffective advice from Cooper’s attorney was remedied by what Scalia called “the gold standard of American justice — a full-dress jury trial before 12 men and women tried and true.”

That view, wrote Kennedy, “ignores the reality that criminal justice today is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials.”

“Ninety-seven percent of federal convictions and ninety-four percent of state convictions are the result of guilty pleas,” he wrote.

Stephanos Bibas, a professor of criminal procedure at the University of Pennsylvania who wrote a law-review article cited in the majority opinion, said the opinion “erected standards” that will be difficult for some challengers to meet.

The majority opinion said defendants would need to show that they would have accepted the plea bargain if not for bad legal advice, that there was a reasonable probability prosecutors would not have withdrawn the offer before trial, and that a judge would have accepted it.

Scalia called this “retrospective crystal-ball gazing posing as legal analysis.”

And Kennedy acknowledged the difficulty in coming up with a remedy for those who proved all that. In cases where the advantage was a lighter sentence, he said, the judge may decide whether the defendant should receive the sentence offered by prosecutors, the one he received at trial “or something in between.”

In cases of a plea that offered a lowered charge, he said, the way to remedy the constitutional injury might be to “require the prosecution to reoffer the plea proposal.”

Alito, a former U.S. attorney, criticized the majority’s “opaque discussion” of the remedies. Requiring prosecutors to reoffer a deal, he said, would be an abuse of discretion in cases where new information about a defendant has come to light after the deal was rejected.

Proto said the decisions will not result in prosecutors offering fewer plea deals. Their resources are too stretched, he said, “to say we’re just not going to offer plea bargains.”

The cases are Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Appeal

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Crimes Watch Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Manuel Garcia Pleads Guilty to a Federal Indictment Charging Him With Federal Bank Fraud Charges

October 17, 2011

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on October 14, 2011 released the following:

“California Man Pleads Guilty to Federal Bank Fraud Charges

ALBUQUERQUE— This morning in Albuquerque federal court, Manuel Garcia, 69, who now resides in Los Angeles, California, entered a guilty plea to an indictment charging him with six counts of bank fraud. At sentencing, which has yet to be scheduled, Garcia faces a maximum sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and a $1,000,000 fine. Under the terms of his plea agreement, Garcia will pay restitution in the amount of $585,243.59 to US Bank of Albuquerque, formerly known as First Community Bank (FCB). Garcia remains on conditions of release under pretrial supervision pending his sentencing hearing.

U.S. Attorney Kenneth J. Gonzales said that Garcia was indicted and charged with six counts of bank fraud on June 7, 2011. At the time of the offenses charged in the indictment, Garcia was president of Keyworth Mortgage Funding Group (Keyworth), a business incorporated in New Mexico and Arizona that originated residential mortgage loans and sold them to investors such as the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae). The indictment generally alleged that, between August 2009 and May 2010, Garcia, fraudulently obtained money from FCB by falsely representing that the funds were to be used to finance new residential mortgage loans. According to the indictment, Garcia actually used the funds to pay Keyworth’s debt to Fannie Mae.

In his plea agreement, Garcia acknowledged that Keyworth maintained a line of credit with FCB from which it would obtain money advances to finance the origination of mortgage loans. Garcia admitted that he devised a scheme pursuant to which he submitted requests to FCB for advances for non-existent mortgages, using property addresses of prior clients. Specifically, Garcia submitted the names, addresses, and requested loan amounts of Keyworth’s prior residential mortgage clients to support his requests for advances. By falsely representing the properties as new mortgages, Garcia caused FCB to wire transfer the requested advances to Keyworth’s bank account in Arizona. Garcia admitted receiving six advances in the aggregate amount of $1,279,650 by submitting fraudulent requests. Because Garcia repaid $535,450 with interest to FCB as if they had been legitimate loans, that sum is not included in the restitution that Garcia will have to pay.

This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Tara C. Neda.”

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Crimes Watch Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Christopher Coke Pleaded Guilty in Federal Court to Trafficking Large Quantities of Marijuana and Cocaine, as well as Approving the Stabbing of a Marijuana Dealer in New York

September 1, 2011

The New York Times on September 1, 2011 released the following in print:

“Jamaican Kingpin Seized After Violent Manhunt Pleads Guilty in Manhattan

By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN

Christopher Coke, a Jamaican drug trafficker whose arrest last summer came after a monthlong manhunt that left scores dead in Kingston, pleaded guilty on Wednesday to racketeering conspiracy charges in Federal District Court in Manhattan.

The guilty plea emerged during an hour of quiet dialogue between Mr. Coke and a federal judge, a proceeding that stood in sharp contrast to the violence generated last year as the Jamaican authorities searched for Mr. Coke, a neighborhood don, at the request of American prosecutors.

Mr. Coke, a short, balding man of 42, pleaded guilty to trafficking large quantities of marijuana and cocaine, as well as approving the stabbing of a marijuana dealer in New York. He faces a maximum sentence of 23 years in prison; the plea deal does not require him to cooperate or to testify on behalf of the government in any proceeding.

“I’m pleading guilty because I am,” he told Judge Robert P. Patterson Jr.

In seeking Mr. Coke’s extradition, Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, charged that for more than a decade Mr. Coke had controlled an international drug ring from his stronghold of Tivoli Gardens in Kingston.

His organization often transported cocaine to Miami and New York, prosecutors said. A portion of the profits, they said, went to buy guns in the United States, which were shipped back to Mr. Coke, who wielded considerable political influence in Jamaica. His organization was so well armed that it “rendered the Tivoli Gardens area virtually off-limits to the local police,” prosecutors wrote in a recent court filing.

The extradition and prosecution of Mr. Coke’s father, a leader of the same criminal organization, had been sought by the United States, but he died in a mysterious fire in a Jamaican prison cell in 1992.

The manhunt for Christopher Coke last year led to more than 70 deaths; in some instances, the police executed unarmed men, according to relatives of victims. In the months before the Jamaican prime minister, Bruce Golding, acted on the extradition request, Jamaican leaders warned officials in the American Embassy that any move to arrest Mr. Coke could result in widespread violence or civil unrest because Mr. Coke was well fortified in Tivoli Gardens and had a measure of popular support, according to a review of secret State Department cables released by WikiLeaks.

His plea deal came together in recent days after prosecutors told Mr. Coke’s lawyers that various confidential informers were prepared to testify that Mr. Coke had been involved in five murders, one of Mr. Coke’s lawyers, Stephen H. Rosen, said. One witness was prepared to testify that Mr. Coke used a chain saw to kill someone who had stolen drugs from him, according to a filing.

Under the original indictment, Mr. Coke could have faced a life sentence if convicted.

Mr. Coke’s lawyers described him as a well-spoken man who had never cursed in their presence; they said he had approached his new life in federal custody, where he is held under unusually restrictive conditions, with stoicism. “He’s never been in bad spirits,” one of the lawyers, Frank A. Doddato, said. “Let’s just say he’s one of the last tough guys.”

Dressed in a blue smock and orange socks, Mr. Coke was one of the first in the courtroom to stand when Judge Patterson entered on Wednesday, and he was the last to sit down. During a lengthy hearing in which he was asked routine questions, like whether his lawyers had provided effective assistance and whether he had recently consumed drugs or alcohol, Mr. Coke remained perched attentively on the edge of his seat, answering each question carefully.

In giving a statement of his guilt, Mr. Coke remained vague as to the specific crimes he had committed. He said that “a person gave someone narcotics on my behalf, on my instructions,” without offering any further details other than the year, 2007.

Initially, Judge Patterson voiced skepticism that the vaguely described crimes to which Mr. Coke was pleading guilty met the standard for racketeering.

When Mr. Coke pleaded guilty to approving the stabbing of a marijuana dealer in the Bronx in 2007, Judge Patterson asked whether the person had sustained serious injury — a component of the charge. Mr. Coke said he believed the person was stabbed in the face.

“Was it something that required hospitalization or was it something he could go home and brag about?” the judge asked.

Mr. Coke said that he was in Jamaica at the time and did not know the details, but that he was sure it would have required medical attention. He did not offer the name of the person who was stabbed. Asked for details about the violence, Ellen Davis, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bharara, refused to name the victim or the attacker.

Mr. Coke acknowledged involvement in the distribution of more than three tons of marijuana and more than 30 pounds of cocaine.

In addition to the confidential informers, prosecutors built the case using wiretaps the Jamaican authorities had been collecting since 2004, when they started eavesdropping on Mr. Coke’s cellphone conversations and on those of other members of his drug trafficking enterprise, according to a court filing.

Mr. Rosen said that some 50,000 conversations had been intercepted in the investigation. Of those, he said, “there was only one in which there was discussion of violence, and I can tell you it wasn’t murder.””

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Crimes Watch Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.

Bookmark and Share


Mark Tilford, a Navy JAG Attorney, Sentenced for Receiving/Distributing Child Pornography

July 9, 2011

The U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas on July 8, 2011 released the following:

“CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas – Mark Tilford, 44, has been sentenced to 125 months in federal prison for his convictions of receiving and distributing child pornography, United States Attorney José Angel Moreno announced today. Tilford, who at the time of his indictment and arrest was an active duty Navy JAG Lt. Commander, pleaded guilty on March 17, 2011.

At the time of his guilty plea Tilford acknowledged that in July 2010, a detective with the Corpus Christi Police Department (CCPD), while acting in an undercover capacity, conducted an investigation into the online activities of persons distributing child pornography via peer to peer software. On July 26, 2010, the detective downloaded multiple files of child pornography traced to a computer at Mark Tilford’s residence. As a result, a federal search warrant obtained by federal agents was executed on Tilford’s Corpus Christi home on Oct. 1, 2010. Agents seized several computers and other electronic storage devices. Subsequent forensic analysis of those devices led to the discovery of 266 images and 98 videos of suspected child pornography on two computers, many of which have been identified as containing known victims by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Tilford has been in custody since his arrest on Jan. 5, 2011, by Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement – Homeland Security Investigations (ICE-HSI), where he will remain pending his transfer to a Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future.

In sentencing Tilford to the 125-month term of imprisonment, Senior United States District Judge Janis Graham Jack stressed the need to protect the public from Tilford and to discourage others from engaging in similar behavior. Judge Jack also sentenced Tilford to a lifetime term of supervised release and ordered Tilford to register as a sex offender for the remainder of his life. Judge Jack also ordered Tilford to pay $100,000 restitution to his victim.

This case, prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Lance Duke, was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice. Led by United States Attorneys’ Offices and the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state and local resources to better locate, apprehend and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the Internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims.”

To find additional federal criminal news, please read The Federal Crimes Watch Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN List Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.

Bookmark and Share


Luis Enrique Ramirez, Former Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Inspector, Sentenced to 204 Months in Federal Prison

July 6, 2011

The U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas on July 6, 2011 released the following:

“Former Customs and Border Protection Inspector Sentenced to Lengthy Prison Term

BROWNSVILLE, Texas – Former Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspector Luis Enrique Ramirez, 39, has been sentenced to a total of 204 months in federal prison, United States Attorney José Angel Moreno announced today. Ramirez, of Brownsville, Texas, was convicted in March 2011, following his guilty plea to conspiring to transport certain aliens within the United States, bringing in a certain aliens into the United States for private financial gain, accepting bribes in his capacity as a government official and possessing with intent to distribute a quantity exceeding five kilograms of cocaine.

Ramirez, 38, of Brownsville, pleaded guilty on March 3, 2011. At that time, Ramirez admitted that between November 2007 and January 2009, while employed as a CBP officer, he was a member of a drug trafficking organization. He admitted that on Dec. 17, 2008, he allowed a co-conspirator to drive a vehicle laden with 12 Kilograms of cocaine into the United States via a vehicle primary inspection lane he was manning at the time. Ramirez also admitted that between July 2008 through January 2009, he conspired with others to bring illegal aliens into the United States and to transport them furthering their illegal presence in the United States for commercial advantage and private financial gain and accepting bribes to influence him in his official capacity as a CBP officer.

Ramirez received the statutory maximum 120 months for each of the two counts of alien smuggling counts, the statutory maximum of 180 months for the bribery conviction, as well as 204 months for drug smuggling. All sentences are to run concurrently. Following his prison term, he will also serve 10 years of supervised release. As part of his sentence, U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen also entered a money judgment in the amount of $500,000 against the defendant, a sum representing the proceeds of Ramirez’s criminal activity, to the United States.

Ramirez’s sentence includes upward adjustments or increases in his calculated sentencing guideline range because he recruited other individuals, he was a public official, he received more than one bribe, he received more than $5,000 in bribes and he was in a high level or sensitive position and used his position as a public official to facilitate the illegal entry persons and narcotics into United States.

Ramirez has been in custody since his arrest where he will remain pending transfer to a Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future where he will serve out his sentence.

This case was investigated by agents of the FBI’s Brownsville Resident office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement – Office of Professional Responsibility, Department of Homeland Security – Office of Inspector General and CBP – Office Of Internal Affairs. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Angel Castro.”

To find additional federal criminal news, please read The Federal Crimes Watch Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN List Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.

Bookmark and Share